Recently Horowitz emailed Marshall expressing curiosity about his intentions, and specifically an interest should he be planning another effort around the San Diego incident to ridicule the idea that it might indicate a serious problem with which all Americans should be concerned. Marshall responded in high dudgeon at the thought that anyone might suspect the center-left of not taking the jihadist threat seriously. So Horowitz asked him for evidence of his own website’s concern. Marshall retorted the very idea that there was not such concern was preposterous, then ended the exchange.

The article then goes on to defend the construction of a mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero and infer that its opponents (like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer) are racist Islamophobes. Cover is given to the project’s leader Feisal Abdul Rauf who is cast as a moderate antidote to Al Qaeda:

The effort is being spearheaded by a longtime local imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, who has said the center would “bridge and heal a divide” and has said it’s his mission to fight radicalism.

But this is a fantasy. At Pajamas Media Walid Shoebat revealed that the reality is that Rauf actually does not believe in inter-faith dialogue, supports Shariah law, and argues that America brought 9/11 on itself.

But perhaps this is an anomaly among Talking Points Memo’s coverage of the war with genocidal, Islamic fascists. With the events of last week – the attempt by Hamas’ “humanitarian wing” to break the legal blockade which keeps rockets from killing Israeli children – the ultimate test of TPM’s allegiances was presented.

Here is a better analogy from the civil rights era, offered by a young friend and colleague.

“Israel’s defenders,” he says, “are arguing that Israel had the right to attack the people on the ships because the flotillas’ goal was not really to supply the Gazans but to break the blockade. Supplying the Gazans was only a pretense for their larger political goal.

He continues:

“So does that mean it was okay to beat and brutalize kids who were sitting-in at Woolworth counters throughout the south in the 1950’s and 1960’s because their real goal was not being served lunch but ending segregation.”

Perfect.

In other words: the flotilla Nazis seeking to break a naval blockade for a terrorist army whose official goal is the “obliteration” of the Jewish state are akin to Civil Rights activists fighting against racist policies.

The bottom line is that the men and women of the flotilla had every right to attempt to destroy an illegal blockade that Israel had no legal standing to impose and which was designed to inflict collective punishment on the people of Gaza. (There is no truth to the story that Israel would have delivered the goods on the ships to Gaza if asked; the Israelis never made that offer and, judging by years of precedent, would have blocked any delivery).

As for the Israeli argument that its soldiers were attacked, that is ridiculous. Israeli commandos were ordered to board a civilian ship in international waters and the government that sent them claims that the resisting passengers attacked them without provocation. This is like a carjacker complaining to the police that the driver bashed him with a crowbar that was under the seat. Neither carjackers nor hijackers should expect their victims to acquiesce peacefully.

In other words: Israel is a criminal state. The IDF was attacked because of the “illegal action” it engaged in.